It is incoherent to expect me to be able to name people who disagree with me reasonably on issues & values. When I find someone's objection to my reasoning reasonable, I change my own mind on the issue & we are no longer in disagreement.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
This may not work too well for moral disagreements though, where moral intuitions play a very big role. Basically what
@JonHaidt argues.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ashishkjames99 @JonHaidt
Jon Haidt is how we know the intuitions that underlie our own motivated reasoning & other people's & why reasoning is hard & needs to be done collectively including viewpoint diversity. This doesn't change the incoherence of that expectation tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I accept that we fail to reason consistently alone & have argued it here, https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ … but a demand to be able to show that one disagrees with arguments that are reasonable is incoherent. You show that I do. Obviously, I don't think I do.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JonHaidt
I'm not sure what the original context of your tweet was. While I get where you're coming from, I'm not entirely convinced. An argument can be reasonable within the constraints of its own axioms. A counter-argument often comes from a different set of axioms. (1)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, you can reason logically from wrong premises. I could certainly name the inquirer people who reason impeccably from the premise that knowledge is a product of power structures rooted in identity - Jose Medina & Kristie Dotson come to mind. If that's all you want, NP.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.